Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19
or wkkene t o noxactru 'slly t thepe an george w. bush of ministration. cheneyumsfeld, the rivals colin powell spaleifrenc gseem ohe iof sto they shared some common traits and beliefs. all of them had backgrounds in the military of the pentagon s a t sta ste enhan hent fsstf as it was a jamie -- chaney and rumsfeld. greta have that cabinet with two former secretariesf defense. sredels. amwastbl fofoodthrl mias of supreme importance. in fact, the disagreements among them or how and when for ld u t uted ve bars or u s. immediately after obama's election in 2008 and decided no one to take aook get the democrats ov the same e. okscod me t0's thuge enay unlike t oba ainisio. nce97he rtd sssoo ba gngf t anti-war movement of the vietnam-era. it h far few peoe, rticularlyn the o mistonengo ef bro ttillion last secretary -- last defense secretary was a republican. sure enough when obama took offi hes feereobat o was befse cr cheth bleeding jobs. atl ri ais in hentlige cnityautop jobs in his administration. so you have a democ
forward including support for programs that were set up by president george w. bush. they have undermined the environmental protection agency, established by richard nixon, and its authority to hold polluters to account and they have threatened iconic places from the great lakes to the gulf of mexico, the appalachian mountains to the chesapeake bay turning away from the national wildlife preservation legacy this country has pursued for more than a century sins the presidency of theodore roosevelt. that is why we call this a political assault on the american environment. it is reckless, it is radical, it is relentless, it is wrong and it is time we stood up to turn this around. [applause] this assault is not about jobs as its proponents claim. it is about putting polluter profits first and putting the rest of us at risk. from the air we breathed the water we drink from the mountains to the sea. government regulations of all kinds account for far less than 1% of all major layoffs in the economy. we have economic data from the bureau of labor statistics that proves that. decades of data make
-one u. s. presidents combined from george washington to george w. bush, he has racked up more debt in 2-1/2 years as president barack obama racked up more deficits than george w. bush in all eight years combined and george w. bush was fighting two wars and barack obama had more deficits and two years than george bush did in eight years. he socialized health care which the congressional budget office says is going to sway 800,000 jobs but more importantly for young people for us it is going to raise our premiums because in obamacare it is tough to weigh a provision that says insurance companies can no longer very price according to one's age or health status. insurance companies look at us and see again healthy individual and say you got to pay the same rate as your parents and grandparents. a huge redistribution of wealth from young to old and the left celebrates it. youth unemployment at historic highs. you have almost double the national average with those 18 and older and you look at the key to unemployment. many of you are in this category if not all of you and in america right now
near. maybe george w. bush. how do we square this? they immediately put this guy in near grade category where as the voters are essentially saying he is eligible for rehire. his overall record which was highly successful. i would describe it as heroic. he made the agonizing decision to drop the atomic bomb. same million american lives. he presided over america's role in fostering the united nations. he was the president under containment which saved western europe from soviet westernism poised with 1 million troops. he fostered the marshall plan. he brought about the national security act of 1947 that created the defense department and the cia and other things. he successfully made the transition from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy, and he made the momentous decision to read about how he made the decision when all his advisers said, you cannot say berlin. you will have to give up on berlin. he made the decision for the berlin airlift. absolutely wrote. everything had described happened in his first term. his second term was really quite mediocre. he did not manage to maintain
can't get below that. i think maybe george w. bush at one point came close. so how do we square the historians immediately in your great category where is the voters were essentially saying he's ineligible for rehire? well, history is looking at the overall record, which is highly accessible. i would say her road trip you look at first term because he made the agonizing decision to save nearly american lines. he presided over america's role in fostering the united nations. he was the president under containment which saved western europe from soviet aggression also miss him that was poised with 1.3 million troops. he frosted the market plan, brought about the national security act of 1947 and created the defense department and other things. he successfully made it transition from the wartime economy and he made the momentous decision to read about how we made the decision and all the adviser said you can't say. you'll have to get country and give up on berlin. absolutely heroic. all that i just described happen in the first term. the second term was really quite mediocre. he did
the first 216 years of the republic, george h.w. bush and obama added 5 trillion to the blink of an eye. so as i was developing the essential arguments for the boat, it occurred to me that he's not just redistributing wealth here at home, although he is absolutely doing that. and the way he has done it is by attacking the four core pillars of the u.s. economy. at the industrial, financial set her, and urges that are in the health care set very. those are the four pillars that uphold the entire u.s. economy and they're all interrelated to everything else. from day one he very methodically and very deliberately went about taking down those pillars because they were built on the free market principle of capitalism and remaking non-ascii massive redistributive schemes. he's been more successful in some areas than others. will see that the supreme court does on thursday with obamacare. i happen to think it's grossly unconstitutional. but he went about it in a systematic way. think about it this way. any other american president would be flipping his lid over eight, nine, 10% unemployment because
will be rid of george w. bush are what get this economy going again. our first black president. hope and change was his way of ringing optimism to his site, to his ideology. we all know it is a sick ideology really destroying the country, but he was able to sell it because he did it with a smile and a dead as a happy idea what this cause. you can never do at this time. his record is so bad is going to run a campaign against governor romney because he has no choice and is going to be cometely 100% negative. this gives governor romney and all abuzz a huge opening to be the happy warriors. we've got to understand happy warriors believed that america can be saved and that is worth saving and we can do the mission must have an it's going to be hard. i read about in this book is going to be hard and require sacrifice because the kooks will not go down without a fight. we have to persevere and it will be painful and branching. look at what is happening in western europe after decades of socialism. it is wrenching and it will be wrenching here. the key to the happy warrior is to understand t
? yes, okay. when you have a chance of winning, if you are george w. bush, if you are bill clinton, if you are mitt romney, the trick is that you need for percent of the country to love you to get through your primary. the right 40 or the left 40 or the 30% -- the trick is when the primary occurs, when it without doing anything that makes it harder to get to 50. mitt romney was determined to do nothing to move farther to the right and necessary to get the nomination. unlike george w. bush in 2000, bill clinton in 1992, where governor carter in 1976, his challengers were on the right and not in the center. bill clinton did not have to move to the left to be people. george w. bush had challengers. john mccain, on the left of him. deep forbes decided to not be the right-wing menace. mitt romney, unlike many other candidates, which faced far more verlyn challengers sucking up delegates and growth in pockets, none of them could ever win by that. but they all did challenges and there were some weak planning that no one expected. i am certain that nobody expected they would have to come o
in the george w. bush administration. cheney, rumsfeld and colin powell and richard r. medish who had risen with them in sight of the republican party. despite all the differences among the members of the previous administration, they shared some common traits and beliefs. all of them had backgrounds in the military or in the pentagon and this was true of the secretary of state who had been the chairman of that joint chiefs of staff. richard r. medish as it was of cheney and rumsfeld. it's rare to have an administration with the former secretary of defense. and they also shared some common beliefs. america was unquestionably a force for good in the world. a military power was of supreme importance and in fact the disagreements among them were halgand win force should be used for the united states should be saved for the big war were used for house it was in iraq. immediately after obama's election in 2008i decided i wanted to take a look at the democrats over the same time period. many of my books have covered the same time period from the 60's through the present day. and i kind of come ac
and 1972. [laughter] >> yes. okay. when you have the chance of winning if you're george w. bush , if you're bill clinton, if your mitt romney, the trick is you need 40 percent of the country to lead you to get through your primary. the right 40 or the left 40 or the 30%. the trick is when the primary without doing things that make it harder to get to 50. mitt romney was determined to do nothing to move farther than the right and necessary. unlike george w. bush in 2000 bill clinton in 1992 or governor carter in 1996, his challengers were on the right not in the center. bill clinton did not have to move to left to be people. george w. bush had challengers. john mccain on the left of him. steve forbes decided to be haven not be the right wing minutes he had been. so mitt romney, unlike many other kennett's was faced with far more virulent challenges sucking out delegates in the votes and pockets. none of them could never win. they all did things that probably -- i'm not sure, but i suspect there was some week planning that nobody expected. i'm certain nobody expected it would have to come
. after george w. bush left office, the club had its protocols and traditions. he was off the grid and disappeared. he said the current president deserves my sound. it is a very classic decision. obviously his vice president did not take that approach. [laughter] when he finally broke the cover three weeks ago and made some very gently constructive criticism of obama's tax on energy policy, he said but, i don't believe our president, our country should criticize our president. the public role of the president supporting the current one continues. this is a great picture. >> this is an amazing moment. again, we argue about whether eisenhower does or not. johnson is the majority leader. still, a democrat and a republican. the night of the kennedy assassination, johnson is on the phone to eisenhower. he said i've needed you for longtime enemies you more than ever. the next day, eisenhower drives to the white house to see president johnson. he sees kennedy's body lying in state. and he goes to see johnson. he writes out in a legal pad and here's what you need to do. you need to call a
is a doofus, george w. bush , sarah palin, dan qyl 's t tca d thno's nrubau ruthnydy e either, but governor romney is someone who is so furious and tone and style and intellect in mission they can do that holeustihes isolal kler. he is not john mccn, god love him, and i respect mccain. ge h. bhbob dole, and he's not oves ta, d al t theeyunng the sort of old tired campaigns. they ran 20th century mcasyigns. aidunrabaantho rneotfeo that and all. there is no bigger political killer on the scene than barack obama. you he to send aolitic pol coranh llg y, gery heant.ife if he contends th presidency, and he will run and do everything he can to win this office. oba.s not afraid of barack 's afm. ng teally co oaniz sending buses -- [applause] yes. sendinbuses now ulece omand gate eyoavlr axd, tay ting of community organizing. this sort of master of modern day astroturf. he didn't know what to do. ydro uphett useo ihe iraccs ey'tw t ey. team romney is getting really good at i his ability to take out the other side in debate, if you wahreouatf athi a mas hesnaknyru es a ter seo aninn a. so i am all
rove was george w. bush's brain, then david axelrod is barack obama's homer. what i mean by that is that david axelrod is a brilliant creator, personal stories of politicians. when brock barack obama ran in 2008, he did not have a record to run on. but he didn't have to run on that. what he had was his personal story. the son of a black african and white middle american mother. a man who saw his identity and found it, he was raised by his saintly grandparents and so forth. this is a homeric story, if you will. homer was known for talking about a trip, and during the trip, coming to some inner understanding of oneself. this is a story that david axelrod passion for obama to run on. the problem is, in this day and age, this is the story we have been there and done and seen and we cannot do it again. he does not have a record of success with the economy. i don't think anybody would disagree with that. he can point to certain liberal causes, such as health care, but we see that in the polls, but that is not a popular thing to run on. what he has been running on instead of dav
. it is not angels vs. doubles but there is a difference. look after 2000 george w. bush's elected. after the most controversial election and 100 years, 36 days to decide, in a weekend position losing the popular vote to, it would be easy for democrats to stop from the beginning damage the weekend presidency but the first thing he pushed to the initiatives. no child left behind and tax cuts. that moved through in a mottled bipartisan fashion coming from miller and kennedy. you could say they like the policy but in doing so they gave legitimacy to bush and made the presidency stronger. it enabled the tax cuts to go through. then we had 9/11. some was controversial but almost unanimous support then you move to the t.a.r.p rejected by republicans and democrats saved the bacon. first president came in without great momentum from clinton and 1993. every republican votes that economic plan then a series of programs including health care with a conscious effort he could not get what he wanted. he could not keep the democrats together but a significant difference then move up at 2009. a president elected
on the programs many of them went to washington with george w. bush. one of them became the lead negotiator on the no child left behind bill. became the lobbiest for peerson the large testing corporation. about the charter school part of the whole deal. i talk to the people who negotiated the bill on the charter schools. nobody ever thought there was going to be a private sector involvement in the charleser -- charter school movement. everybody inhavingsed nonprofits would come in and take over a few schools and it would be a good way to innovate. nobody said internet schooling run bay private corporation who sets an anchor at some on secure school district in tennessee and announces it's a real public school. the amount of 0 private money -- that's going to the public school system is one the biggest consequences of no child left behind. it was something that the people at least in congress who put it together had no thought about. it was not in their picture at all. >> it all comes out of texas? >> yes, it all came out of texas. when you started the book how much time had you spent in tex
george h. w. bush sent a monthly newsletters -- they are not monthly. he offered them and all but one turned them down. a lot of people that used to be president wants get away a little bit. they've had enough of that secure world stuff. and i gave them up -- about life that life up for something better and different. .. >> we are about out of time. just on behalf of everyone here, the reagan library and the foundation, mike and nancy, i just want to say thank you so much for coming, it was just fascinating. we're so happy that you're here. >> thank you. ms. . [applause] >> you're watching booktv on c-span2, 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books every weekend. congressional scholars thomas mann and norman ornstein examine partisan politics in the u.s. government. they contend the level of hyperpartisanship has resulted in a disfunctional political process that's marked by adherence to political party platforms above all else. this is about an hour and a half. >> i think we are, um, i think we're ready to begin. um, i'm e.j. dionne, senior fellow here at brookings. i moderat
that both governor reagan and george h. w. bush who enlisted on pearl harbor day in thevy,a-ph54 conversation on restitution and apology to the americans who were herded into concentration camps during world wa th spewhs frs hayf i wihewnor in algeria. algeria is a very special case. algeria was not overseas. it waslly artmt of nodyt biffce th u1 io ros covo and 3 million berbers in algeria who couldn't. enly ethasylt icsov30a tasabt liberty were phot list noncitizens. that led to an eight year very bloody civil warndazy he de t ae e in bolrs e onrtgi e not talk about repentance in apologies. he said that does not go for relations between states. thges l, ink itas jt fthhe e skifatt epncrh happened having been promised and never got it. that is a general problem of nations, not justthe ch at t hthme led aia prm t wecin a korea,but that is the dark side and that is part of tisnfuokre trying to address. congratulations. the writing and that beautiful the beautiful poetry and the rechng tsut would you consider adding a 12thanwhhdingor send eerl mk stitr ruto dreis yh
. george bush had. ,. mo women to look at than - many meomo lat an pdegas. w,sten hng s't know how harriet miers will do in those. thank you. >>ava. yolkut hucu ta t hawle and what they -- what they shed on her ture? that's a good question. a l ofup coon e pecy b pos bui o rv wlale th bretheran was entirely built around interview ws law clerks. i probably intviewed --aybe abou lle aal anmermbtl william brennan that was a chamber that i wanted to get inside and find out how he felt tord her. because i was lucky enough s t-octsid elt n isreha o cl dt t go on on the paper trail. when justice brennan and justice o'connor got into a kind of flap, a rivry or oral ment andhe scnualum stindus brnte a ry sg teut h tht t her proposal could only lead to potential corrupt ruling and that if the court adopted her propal, wou gli l he csneot t wcudng st. so f ime bw clerks, i would never turn my back on a law clerk who wanted to tell me something but didn't feel as much that i had to rely onhemec i h eseaocts boctsese o ui pl,ch aow in aee a frankly
, it was in the 1988 when the first george bush but ronald reagan set it in motion, i mean, allele bot agnd -ey ob, kn cis w,gh mpared to ore republicans. other republicans. but the reparation at that point was $20,000 to each japanese-american family which if you think about it, right, lo fheri,arei of theseolks eeld,ir it arouw? and many of the young men who were then drafted out of the camps, you know, i mean, that's crazy, you know? you imprisoned my family, then you're going to ask me -- well, youmprison me me fr nt aousk urmoych't take part of? i understand 20,000 is a lot -- i'd take $20,000 right now, but, you know, it was such a gesture, you know, kind of a it is in this time of model minority and, manehe cf years after the by we put those people to rest, we'll keep them quieter by giving them 20,000. my feeli on reparations was, you know, the investme in education that we have been talking about. i was thinking throughou this whole past centu when we're pped to be the li yw,ve llhetum any century, right? and we've been in a war in asia since the 1940s. i mean, you could include the phil
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19